After waxing rhapsodic on this and other forums about the magnificence of the 90mm Summicron-R as a portrait lens, I took the plunge and decided to trade it toward an 85mm f/1.2L for my EOS-1v.

The portrait on the left above was taken with the 85mm f/1.2L, the one on the right with the 90mm Summicron. Both photos were shot at f/4. The model, film, developer, and lighting was the same. The makeup was not (it was stronger on the right), and the print processing, being done digitally in PhotoShop, was of course slightly different.

No conclusions should be drawn from this JPEG comparison, and I am not intending this to be any kind of a real test of the two lenses. (So please no flames!) I post these images only to serve as a springboard for discussion.

Studying the PSD files on my monitor, it is obvious that the image taken with the 85mm f/1.2L is significantly sharper; however, comparisons with other images shot with the 90mm Summicron-R under identical studio conditions would indicate that when the Summicron is properly focused, its sharpness roughly equals that of the Canon optic (at f/4). Of course, this is far from an insignificant factor and would seriously argue in favor of autofocus.

One should also bear in mind that (1) the 85mm f/1.2L is about twice the price of the Summicron on the used market and (2) that the Summicron focuses about six inches closer.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), March 06, 2002

Answers

Tough to make any judgements about the tonal qualities because of the differences you noted and the limitations of the scan, but I definitely like the Canon image better. On the right, it seems she's trying to fit some glamour stereotype; on the left, she's seems to be more honestly expressing herself.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 06, 2002.

the 85mm f/1.2L is about twice the price of the Summicron on the used market

One can only wonder what Bob Atkins on photo.net would say about this.... ;-)

It should also be noted that the 90mm Summicron-R is a 1970-ish design which is out of production and the replacement is expected to be an R version of the 90 APO-ASPH.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), March 06, 2002.

Hello Peter,

Well a springboard for discussion, but don't use the pics to compare.... Well I love the fact that I can get closer with my 90mm Elmarit (10.5" approx.), the Summicron the same? Autofocus is better, if not to save on eye strain. Although sitting in a studio...not much need for autofocus. As for which is sharper, I see more very fine wisps of hair in shot on the right. More detail in her freckles on the right (make-up a little different). Now that you have traded your summicron for your spank'n new 85mm f/1.2L, I don't suppose any amount of discussion will give you buyers remorse? cheers, Brooke ;0)

-- Brooke Anderson (dbanders@videotron.ca), March 06, 2002.

With all due respect to your needs as a professional, Peter, the way some of the forum participants here change lenses the way I change T- shirts makes my head spin ;-)

I don't take many head shots (or head and shoulders, for that matter) but for all but the most patient of subjects, autofocus does nail focus on the eyes far more consistently than I can, manually at these portrait lens focal lengths.

As you say, that is a serious argument in favor of autofocus. On the other hand, a little carelessness in technique also means that the eyes are often not in focus (in indoor available light portraiture).

In any case, autofocus speed may actually restore informality and fluidity of photography in situations where using an SLR over a Leica M camera supposedly detracts from just such informality and ease.

Of course, MHO defers to yours, Mike's and other professionals, and those who work with professional and poised portrait subjects and models.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 06, 2002.

I have always snickered about lenses people refer to as "great portrait lenses". To me this is just a spin on a lens that is soft wide open. The 90/2 R (and pre-APO M's) fall into that category. However, by f/4 that lens is neck-and-neck with the v.2 90/2.8 and that is one very spectacular lens. I have not shot the Canon 85/1.2 myself so I can not express more than unproven skepticism that it outperforms the Elmarit and Summicron at f/4 - f/8.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 06, 2002.

Wow those eyes on the left pic! Hypnotic almost.

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

I don't see how this can be a springboard for discussion. The images for all intents and purposes are exactly the same to my eye except for the apparent difference noted by the poster (makeup and Photoshop retouching).

You probably got the 85 f/1.2L because you wanted autofocus and a faster flash sync. There's no need to justify the purchase further.

-- JM Woo (wooismyid@deletethis.yahoo.com), March 06, 2002.

Peter. I can't tell the difference between the two images in terms of sharpness (the eyes look equally sharp). However, I do know the Canon 85/1.2 EF-L has already become "legendary" for its sharpness. This lens (at least the originial version) uses a hand ground and polished aspherical element. It is probably at least as good even as the 75/1.4 Summilux-M. However, despite its high cost and its impressive optical quality, it is set in a cheap plastic mount. This does not look like a lens that can take hard knocks.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 06, 2002.

Am I mistaking or are you not the very same poster who recently raved extatically at the so-called "unique 3D quality" brought by Leica lenses ? And who triggered a thread of nodders also seeing 3D in a picture similar to the ones above?

I am happy with your conclusions, the same as mine, that there is NO practical imaging capability difference between Leica lenses and the cream of the production of the others (C,N,P,M or C again) at usual working apertures.

Reasons for choosing Leica are quite different: the M system as such for its uniqueness of features, the build quality and tactile feedback of M or R lenses and bodies, the simplicity of the ergonomics for M and R, the insurance to have very high quality at maximum aperture for all current lenses, the luxury, etc, etc.

It is perfectly understandable that you foresee more mileage from a picture taking system like EOS+85mm f1.2, and I'm sure your production will not suffer one iota from your choice.

If only we could from now on avoid mystical appraisals of so- called unique imaging performance of one range of lenses against another, we might avoid leading "innocent bystanders" to spend fortunes pursuing an illusion....

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

Sorry, just cannot resist. Here is one of Peter's posts of last week:

QUOTE

I've been shooting portraits with the 90mm and 50mm Summicrons for the better part of a year now, and I find that they have a "three dimensional" quality that is unique among all lenses I have tried. I used to shoot Canon primes, but the 85mm f/1.8 USM was "flat" by comparison. Understand that I do not mean contrast here, but the subtle rendering of the roundness of the human face. I recently bought into a Nikon F100 with 5 or 6 primes and, again, I find that although I get very good results with the Nikkors, they are similar to the Canon lenses in regard to "roundness."

UNQUOTE

How life changes is 1 week.....

So let us recap: "round unique 3D" Leica + "not round" new Nikon + "flat" old Canon = otping back to new Canon. All this within 6 days....

It is your money, Peter. However, at f4, your new 85mm f1.2 EF performs in an exactly equivalent way to your former 85mm f1.8 EF. Just as flat or round or 2D or 3D or whatever. Maybe this is what keeps our economies from collapsing.... ;-)

Just curious: is your photography actually paying for this investment yoyo ? Or is this a hobby ? The latter would really reassure me: my revenues from photography only just barely allow me a 1 (Leica) lens purchase every other year. Thankfully photography is not my main source of revenue...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 07, 2002.

Jacques, check this out

http://www.ravenvision.com/rvapeter.htm

I'm sure you'll agree you'll have to seek reassurance somewhere else ;-)

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 07, 2002.

Mani,

Thanks for pointing me back there: had forgotten about that site. Some really absolutely gorgeous images there. Leaves me sorry for myself....;-/

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), March 07, 2002.

Peter, I own and use both lenses. Even a web file tends to hint at the differences (look at the eye lashes, the left version appears superior to my eye). That said, it's kind of the "apples and oranges" thing...the only thing the two have in common is the relative focal length. One is smaller, more thoughtful and discrete, (perfect for candids ), the other titanic, promiscous and obvious. In the studio I use the Canon, mostly because I'm shooting digital portraits directly to the computer. I also use the Canon at weddings for fast grab shots using 2nd shutter flash. I'm dumping my Canon 85/1.2 to help fund a M7 which fearures second shutter with a Metz. My aching back is really delighted with the decision. But the 85/1.2 is quick and a good performer, of that you should have no doubt.

Marc Williams

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 07, 2002.

I make no apologies for my U-Turn. As Vonnegut said in CAT'S CRADLE, "All of the absolute truths I am about to tell you are shameless lies." Or as Emerson said about a foolish consistency being the hobgobblin of little minds, "Speak what you think now in hard words and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today." By that yardstick, my mind must be huge. :)

Mike: I agree with you entirely. Maybe that's why I chose the image with the gritted teeth.

Eliot: the 85mm f/1.2L does not have a "cheap plastic mount."

As for why I have been changing lenses/camera systems, well, I had an EOS system a couple of years ago, which I foolishly let go in order to explore digital. Then I went from digital to Leica M, to Leica R, and now back to EOS. OK, so I'm obsessive-compulsive! Sue me. Better cameras than drugs.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), March 07, 2002.

I agree with you Peter, whatever gets the image is what counts. When I die I'd like to be known for the images I took, not what cameras I owned. Your web-site speaks for itself.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 07, 2002.

This is heresy, set up a stake, stack some kindling and seize that man att once!

;^)

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 07, 2002.

It is probably at least as good even as the 75/1.4 Summilux-M.

It's better. Wide open center to edge sharpness and contrast are superior to the 75 Summilux. It also has the unbeatable advantage of focus accuracy at close range, being an AF SLR lens. I used to own this lens and regret selling it. Looks like I'll be huntin' around for another one soon.

it is set in a cheap plastic mount.

Nope... the outer shell may be plastic, but the innards and mount are metal. This is one solid chunk of glass. A bit slow to focus compared to other USM lenses, probably due to its mass, but effective nonetheless.

This does not look like a lens that can take hard knocks.

I don't know about that... but I'd bet money that this lens would take a harder knock than an M6. With a perfectly aligned rangefinder you'd be a little iffy at close range with the 75 lux. But with a slightly whacked out rangefinder you'd be screwed. ;-)

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), March 07, 2002.

Peter and others. I beg to differ. I have one of these lenses and it DOES have a cheap plastic outer barrel. I don't know what is inside, I suspect the weight is just from the large amount of glass needed for the aperture of F/1.2. Of course the lens mount itself is metal for all Canon L lenses, including this one; but the barrel is plastic. And I definitely do not recommend testing this hypothesis by dropping the item. The optics are great; but this is not a well made lens mechanically. Canon has other EF lenses that are use metal barrels (eg., 300/4 EF-L etc.) and are much better made.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 07, 2002.

Peter

My only point is really that you are not comparing like with like. The lens you probably should have tested it against is the 'lux 80 f1.4, not the Summicron, as the lux is more up to date. Also the lux has a better performance than the 'cron at the wider apertures. I bet the Canon is a good lens although it is a vast optic with a 77mm filter thread. In other words the Summicron-R 90mm is actually the poorest performing lens in the 80-100mm range for Leica-R.

I have to say I do feel sorry for all impressionable potantial purchasers out there when reading these debates.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Peter, after having read your post, and your purshasing story, I thought to myself "What's this for a junkie ?"... Then I saw your web site. Respect, man, lovely! You have a knack for portraiture and colour I dream to have one day. And then of course, whatever the lens, as long as it suits you...

-- Stephane Bosman (stephane_bosman@yahoo.co.uk), April 12, 2002.